Both Obama and Palin Rooting for Impeachment

Impeach ObamaWhen John Boehner was asked about impeachment the other day, he said this: “We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans. Listen, it’s all a scam started by Democrats at the White House.”

Not exactly, Mr. Speaker.

Boehner’s a busy man so perhaps he didn’t know it was Sarah Palin who just a few weeks ago lit the match that started a firestorm about impeaching the president. In an op-ed for Breitbart she wrote that “It’s time to impeach” Barack Obama.

And she was hardly the first to come up with the idea. Republicans from the ideologically pure wing of the party have thrown the “I” word around for years. And as recently as June 4, former Congressman Allen West wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post making the case that the way the president handled the swap of Guantanamo prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Berghahl was “an impeachable offense.”

So, chatter about impeaching the president was not, in Boehner’s words, “a scam started by Democrats in the White House.” It was a dopey idea started by hardliners in his own party — and according to the polls, supported by many rank-and-file Republicans, though opposed by a vast majority of the electorate.

(A quick few words about those rank-and-file Republicans:  They think Barack Obama should be impeached because he committed impeachable offenses.  They may be right.  But what always amuses me — (not in a good way) — is how clueless these people are about politics.  They think being right is enough — and anyone who doesn’t see it their way is a sell-out. They are the same people who, if they thought they were right, would run over a hill into a blaze of machine gun fire.  And die.  In politics, dying means losing elections and not getting the policies implemented that you want.  Thankfully, ideological purists, while having a loud voice on talk radio and the web, won’t get their way on impeachment.)

But Boehner is on to something. Even as he and other sensible Republicans are saying there are no plans now or in the future to impeach the president, Democrats are doing everything they can to keep impeachment alive. They’d like nothing better than for Republicans in the House to vote to impeach President Obama — especially since they know he’d never be convicted in the Senate.

But mostly they know the American electorate would crucify Republicans in November if the GOP actually tried to impeach the president. Voters may not be happy with the way the president is handling just about anything, but they don’t want to go through another impeachment.

That’s why, I suspect, Barack Obama goes to bed every night praying that the fringe will somehow convince the rest of the Republican Party to vote for impeachment. He and just about everybody but the true believers understand that that’s the Democrats’ only hope for avoiding disaster in November.

All the polls show the GOP picking up seats in the Senate with a better than even chance of taking control. The election is a referendum, mainly, on the president. Democrats around the country will pay for Mr. Obama’s unpopularity. Unless …

Unless, the impossible happens and the crazies have their way. Then, the election is no longer about Barack Obama’s incompetence. It’s about fringe Republicans – and how the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

So Boehner is half right. The Democrats didn’t start it, but they are trying to pull off a scam. They know impeachment is never going to happen, no matter what Barack Obama does. Even if he unilaterally grants asylum to 50,000 Central American kids on our border while Congress is on vacation, the House won’t impeach him. So Democrats have just one hope: keep talking about impeachment and hope voters who aren’t too smart believe it might really happen.

They won’t understand that it’s Democrats and not the vast majority of Republicans who are keeping impeachment on the front burner. Mr. Obama will go to rallies and tell them, “The Republicans are trying to impeach me for doing my job,” and they’ll believe it.

Meanwhile, Democrats are raising millions for the midterm campaigns with warnings that if the GOP takes over the Senate in three months, they’ll move to impeach the president.

The only people who want the President of the United States impeached are the crazies on the right – and Democrats. Who would have thunk it: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama on the same team, both rooting for impeachment. Politics really do make strange bedfellows.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • nkqx57a

    ““Obama once quipped to French President Francois Hollande, That’s the good thing about being president; I can do whatever I want.””

    People thought he was joking.

    Without moral standards…you have chaos…which opens to door for anarchy…which opens the door for tyrants…which is what we now have in Obama and his Administration.

    The joke will be on Obama; Obama’s and his Administration’s legacies are toast… HISTORY will record that what Obama and corrupt Progressive Liberals did in Eight Years, it took a Generation to correct and Obama’s presidency will become known as America’s “Lost Decade”.

    Obama will not have the place in history he so eagerly covet; other than being the first elected half White/Black President. Instead of ranking with Lincoln and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter. Defying our laws, removing our rights, over-riding established procedures, installing controversial appointees, enacting divisive mandates, and asserting a dictatorial form of power (and with help from the Judiciary and the MSM, sometimes succeeding; and has no fear of, nor respect for the Constitution, Congress and We the People).

    Corrupt Progressive Liberals will get a foot-noted in History, as well…”Caused great damage to America’s DNA due to the lies, scandals, immorality and corruption forced upon the people. Their intolerance for America’s founding and the principles enshrined in its founding documents. They failed to realize…without moral thought and a functioning moral conscience…they were the problem and America suffered for it.”

    If a Republican President or any non-black Democrat President did what Obama has done, I have no doubts that they would be facing impeachment; if not already been impeached.

    There is only two reasons that Obama will not be facing Impeachment…(1) that our corrupt politics has now corrupted our democracy causing great harm to America’s DNA…(2) Obama may only be half-black, but that doesn’t matter he is still black; which means every standard must be lowered and he cannot therefore be held accountable for his actions.

  • Teddymich

    So, it looks like about 70% of folks in this discussion want impeachment and 20% more want impeachment but don’t think the House should vote for impeachment because although they feel it’s justified; it shouldn’t be pursued only because they won’t have the votes to convict.

    Several feel he’s raped the constitution; some say he’s lawless and a criminal. Pretty strong words. What I am looking for is evidence of all of this criminal behavior to justify words like rape and lawlessness. Is delaying pieces of Obama care the basis for impeachment ? That’s kinda a low bar. Of course many presidents have done the same thing with legislation; most recently president bush with Medicare part d. Is the lawlessness because he’s issued more executive orders than other presidents? No he’s way under Reagan ; bush and Clinton. Is it because the Supreme Court said he shouldn’t have made recess appointments when congress was not technically on recess? Most presidents have done that as well.

    Unfortunately hatred is not a basis for impeachment .

    • loupgarous

      Medicare Part D passed both Houses of Congress. What he did afterwards with respect to that legislation was within the intent of Congress when they passed the law in the first place. Better luck next time.

    • loupgarous

      Hatred is not what makes me want Obama impeached. His contempt for Congress, including both of my Senators and my Representative is. He has refused to enforce the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform Act in its entirety. He illegally ordered the NSA, FBI and CIA to electronically eavesdrop on the news media (the headquarters of the Associated Press, for example), and may have ordered the politically-motivated harassment of his political opposition by the Internal Revenue Service.

      He, through his equally corrupt Attorney General (another prime candidate for impeachment) also ordered the banking bureaucracy to have bankers deny business banking services to gun dealers and pawn shops in order to drive them out of business. We still have yet to determine Obama’s full culpability in the Benghazi incident. Likewise with Operation Fast and Furious, where he invoked executive privilege in order to stonewall Congressional investigations into a gunrunning escapade which had no clear authorization in Federal law and resulted in at least two deaths in the American law enforcement community.

      Compared to the paltry three Articles of Impeachment which led to Richard Nixon’s decision to resign from the Presidency, Barack Hussein Obama has clearly committed offenses meriting not only the three charges brought against Richard Nixon, but a raft of other charges related to his blatant politically-motivated abuse of power.

      NOT impeaching Barack Obama is the irrational act.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    Make the Democratic Party responsible for this.
    The Democratic Party IS responsible for this.

    When they want to join hands and go forward.. lets do that.. carefully. Maybe.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    I adamantly support Senator Jeff Sessions for the Republican nomination to the candidacy for the Presidency. In any case, in this circumstance..

    1. if we hurry the process of the Republican Convention along, find a mature and intelligent candidate, the processes of apposing the conduct of the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama as its leader, that ability to appose their conduct would improve significantly.
    2. Make certain.. without being shrill, that the Democratic Party supports Mr. Obama’s conduct.
    3. Stuff an old sock into the mouth of any Republican that mentions impeachment again.. including anyone we choose to run for the Presidency under the Republican Banner.
    4. AGAIN.. make certain the Democratic Party has ownership of the conduct of Mr. Obama.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    Issa is telling us without equivocation: they are being stonewalled, and investigations are just not going to happen without much more significant laws that protect the American People.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    Supurb!
    If you have ever been to Virginia and taken a look at the local creeks, you discover they are V Shaped and twenty feet deep.. forty feet deep. In 1776, when you tried to get to the Congress, you ..did not. get to Congress on a lot of occasions. In some cases, that time to get from here to there for most of the United States was still there as late as 1933. We needed the government we had given the state of the roads, and the state of the communications. (Congressional Bills did not whiz around the country via telegraph.)

    We need a new way to govern. What we had did us ..sort.. of well for a very long time, but the ideas up there are excellent, and almost a requirement for a government today. I much prefer the Westminster style of Government.. either one would be a significant improvement over what we have today and the system we have at this point, does.. not.. work!

  • Bob Hadley

    Here, Operation Fast & Furious was started under the Bush Administration, under a different name. It’s a policy adopted by the Obama Administration. No matter how severe the unintended consequences this policy may be, it’s covered by sovereign immunity. As a constitutional scholar, I’m sure you’re familiar with sovereign immunity.
    You apparently have trouble distinguishing between statements of fact and opinion. I learned that in 7th grade. And I went to government run schools!
    STRIKE THREE!

    • loupgarous

      Yeah, Nixon tried the “sovereign immunity” dodge, too. Oddly, no one was impressed.

      • Bo Hadley

        I notice that you’ve only responded to a small portiion of what I’ve said above.
        You need to distinguish between private acts and enacting public policy. As I understand it, the Nixon Administration was being investigated for a specific crime (the private act of illegally breaking into an office and possibly obstructing a federal election), for which a criminal process had begun. That administration was also being investigated for another criminal act, specifically the private acts amounting to obstruction of an official FBI investigation.
        The court ruled that Pres. Nixon must release his tapes because, although serving a quasi-public purpose (presidential history), they were needed to further a legitimate criminal investigation. Similarly, later presidents – including our current president – have had to surrender documents pertinent to Congressional investigations.
        If I’m not mistaken, many claimed accused Pres. Nixon of murder and of being a war criminal because of his Vietnam policy. Of course, the realities did not fit the criminal statutes, as wrong-headed a Pres. Nixon’s Vietnam policy MAY have been.
        Sovereign Immunity refers to the president carrying out public policy pursuant to Article III of the COTUS. Simply disagreeing with that public policy or pointing out unintended consequences thereof is does not make it a crime.
        In a criminal action, prosecutors must rely on evidence proving that a specific crime was committed. They cannot impinge on the realm of public policy. Here, the line between public policy and private acts can theoretically overlap somewhat. But nothing Pres. Obama has clearly done falls within this overlap. You have to leave politics out of this. And don’t kid yourself, this is largely political
        You can argue that Pres. Obama’s acts clearly fall under Article II (as opposed to Article III) until you’re hoarse, just as others argue that his acts fall under Article III. Until the court of last resort speaks, this is nothing more than argument.
        Do you know any prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys? If so, talk to them about this.

  • Bob Hadley

    Here, you seem to place a spin on the facts that amount to your own personal speculation – i.e. that the aforesaid regulatory powers are used politically and/or personally.
    You also state your opinion that the specific acts of these regulatory arms violate the COTUS. My response here is the same as my response given above. it’s merely your bald opinion. Repeating it does not make it true or convincing to a critical thinker.

  • Bob Hadley

    Here, you simply stated your opinion that 1) Pres. Obama’s implementation (as above-referenced) falls under Article I of the COTUS, and not Article II and 2) that this is a high crime or misdemeanor within the meaning of the COTUS. Merely stating your opinion in broad terms does not make it true or convincing.
    But, according to the COTUS, the SCOTUS has the final say as to what is and what is not constitutional. If the court of last resort (whether the SCOTUS or the DC Court of Appeals) rules it unconstitutional, then it might be an impeachable offense if he persists.
    You may be a constitutional scholar, but your analysis
    takes a back seat to the SCOTUS.

  • OKWishbone

    Impeachment is a dream that will never come true. It never came true with Bill Clinton when Republicans had a much stronger position in the Senate and has never in the 238 years of this republic been successfully accomplished. Republicans in the House and Senate and throughout the country need to stop wasting precious time talking about how to impeach Barack Obama and more time on how to prevent another Barack Obama from ever being elected again.

    Republicans need to be asking themselves how did they come to nominate a John McCain and a Mitt Romney that allowed such a man as Barack Obama to be elected to the most powerful position in the world? How did they allow themselves to be pulled so far away from the policies of Ronald Reagan and its bi-partisan yet conservative coalitions?

    The best way to stop President Obama’s Executive Orders is not to sue or impeach him, but to elect a conservative Republican president who will have his own stack of Executive Orders on his desk awaiting his signature repealing each of President Obama’s Executive Actions that he has signed throughout his presidency. He can accomplish this as soon as he returns from the Inaugural Ball.

    Those talking impeachment are wasting the country’s time. They need to be concentrating on insuring that the country does not have a president Hillary Clinton.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      Anytime anyone opens their mouth and suggests impeachment for Mr. Obama, they invoke blind opposition in the population. I absolutely think Mr. Bohner will impeach when there is a clear case, and that he does not see one at this point.

      Is Obama trying to cause an impeachment process. I believe he is, and it would be a catastrophe. At the same time, I am not sure the Republican Party is not its own catastrophy and for that reason, I am beginning to see the idea of a Westminster type of Government as a very, very good idea. Perhaps a critical idea.

  • wildjew

    I watched Rep. Steven King with Chris Wallace yesterday.

    CNSNews reported: “Conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is urging President Obama not to grant de facto amnesty to millions more illegal immigrants by executive fiat, as the president has hinted he will do.

    “I want to encourage the president, please don’t put America into a constitutional crisis. Please don’t do that,” King told “Fox News Sunday.”

    King said if Obama takes immigration law into his own hands, then Congress would have to “sit down and take a look” at impeachment…..

    Bernie, I don’t know what Republicans can do with this scofflaw of a president other than threaten to impeach him if he continues to ignore the law, Separation of Powers, the Constitution. Maybe (God willing) we get a Republican majority in the Senate he can be convicted. What does it take in the Senate to convict an impeached president? A simple majority?

    What do you suggest we do with this lawless man?

    • The Gimlet Eye

      It takes 2/3 to convict. An unlikely prospect, unless Democrats have a sudden awakening to defend the Constitution.

      • wildjew

        Thanks. Even short of conviction, it would send a strong signal that Obama’s behavior is indefensible. You cannot compare the impeachment of Bill Clinton (as Republican leaders are doing) to Obama’s lawlessness.

  • SkyCitizen

    Does Barack Obama deserve impeachment? Probably. Can Barack Obama be impeached, Definitely not! Articles of impeachment would be resisted by Democrats and fearing the ever present specter of the tried and true racist accusation Republicans would never push the issue. It’s not OK to impeach a black President but suing one is a different matter. A law suit is an untested area of redress and is not subject to public opinion.

    • wildjew

      You cannot (must NOT) live your life cowering in fear over the charge of racism when you are not a racist. I am not a racist. I could care less what Obama-supporters call me.

  • Thurly

    Ezra Klein has a fun piece on VOX that details how North Carolina voted 50.5% Democratic in the 2012 election. Democrats won four House seats out of thirteen – that’s 30.7%. In 2012, according to the Federal Elections Commission, 50.78% of the country voted Democrat in the national elections (President, Senate, House); 45.72% voted Republican. One wonders when you say voters (one assumes you mean a majority of voters), if you aren’t conveniently ignoring the distortions of gerrymandering.

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      And thank you for that link that allows us to inspect the basis for your comments. …not.

      • Thurly

        Joel, I don’t care, really, who wins the next election. For me, it will make very little difference. It’s true, I prefer the liberal approach to government (government is not inherently bad—it’s our government—its role should be limited by what’s good for the people not the “government’s the problem” idea. It’s up to the people to police the government and keep it responsive and responsible to the people. From what I’ve seen, the government’s track record is no worse than that of private business when it comes to mismanagement, fraud, waste.

        I have yet to notice a difference in my personal life when Republicans rule or Democrats rule. Hardly a ripple. But for the people who live on the margins (we have some in our family), the approach of the Democrats seems to be more helpful. Income inequality, for example, hurts the country. While companies effectively negotiate to keep labor costs low, there is no commensurate mechanism when management sets its own compensation as we have seen over the last 45 years. The velocity of money slows down as money gets parked in investments, savings and offshore accounts and tax havens. The economy suffers—which is especially important at the low end of the margins. Trickle down turns out to be an argument by people talking their book.

        Still, I wish you well in the same sense that I wish my mother and brother well. I respect your opinion as I respect theirs—which is to say, I respectfully disagree. But it’s really a disagreement my degree. I do too want the smallest possible government, I would simply draw the line differently. I believe government should be as small as we can manage while taking full advantage of the economies of scale that large numbers provide.

        • Joel Wischkaemper

          Thurly, I wanted to see the link that supported the information you provided.

          • Bob Hadley

            I don’t have that link off-hand, but it should be easy to get. Surely you’re aware that because of gerrymandering (something done by both parties), the 2012 election was slanted in favor of GOP candidates, esp. incumbents. Even Karl Rove has not disputed that Democrats collectively garnered most of the votes.

          • Thurly

            The VOX article cited above has a blurb on the fact that both parties gerrymander. Section 7: Are Republicans the Only Ones who Gerrymander?

          • Bob Hadley

            You changed the subject. You need to read my post again and, also, to stay focused on the subject.
            First, knowing that you might try to stray from the subject, I noted above that both parties gerrymander.
            The point I addressed was that, because of gerrymandering (even if the specific gerrymandering was done by Democrats), the GOP won most federal elections in 2012 even though the Democrats collectively garnered most of the votes. I was not assigning fault. I was citing a statement of fact that has been widely reported, even on Fox News.

          • loupgarous

            Which raises an interesting question. Do we tweak legislative district boundaries year-to-year to get the “desired” results? Which are those results? Trivially, “majority rule” is best, of course. But everyone has a “yes, but” answer to that one.

            I’ve always thought that the number of Representatives in the house needs tweaking to be roughly equivalent to one Representative for every number of Americans represented (on average) at the turn of the 1800s/1900s.
            One Representative per county would be very unjust; it’d give Alaskan boroughs with a few thousand voters the same clout as the city and county of Denver, for example.

            But a House comprising 2-3000 members elected from populations of, say sixty to a hundred thousand voters would give us much more representative government. It’d be hard for individual Representatives to demand huge salaries and staffs, and obviously, they couldn’t all meet in the Capitol.

            Fine. In the Internet, we have the ideal basis for true and representative democracy, in which bills could potentially be debated more openly and thoughtfully than they ever have. Lobbying would be a huge and unprofitable endeavor for a 2,500 member-strong House of Representatives, each of whom could do his or her work from his or her home district and always know what their stand is on a given piece of legislation.

            And gerrymandering would make much less sense.

          • Bob Hadley

            OH! Sorry Thurly, I thought I was responding to a post from Joel. I guess I too should be more careful. :)

          • Thurly

            No problem Bob, I’ve done the same. Appreciate your posts.

          • loupgarous

            Thanks, Bob, for admitting the truth – the very worst case of gerrymandering was the legislative district mandated by the Federal courts in the late 1980s-early 1990s running for a few miles to either side of the highway between Shreveport and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (over a hundred miles) to assure election of an African-American candidate. That particular district was struck down by a superior court, as it ought to have been. Both parties are very much in love with gerrymandering in all its forms.

          • Thurly

            Here’s the VOX article: Everything You Need to Know About Gerrymandering

            http://www.vox.com/cards/gerrymandering-explained/how-important-is-gerrymandering-to-republican-control-of-the-house

            Section 9, Number 4 in the list is about North Carolina.

            The Federal Elections Commission data is here:

            http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf

            Page 8.

          • Thurly

            The data for the North Carolina election that I cited from VOX is actually from Section 2 of the same VOX article. Note the pie chart.

  • teddymichigan

    This is exciting, even though you laid out the case for how stupid and self destructive the fringe is of the Republican Party, most of the comments attack you Bernie and want to go gun-ho for impeachment. I really hope they rile up their gerrymandered republican representatives and push the impotent, do nothing republican house to vote for impeachment as they are advocating here. This is great news! Push on folks, Impeach Obama!!!

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      (And just think.. this is the very best of the DNC action committee .. in action.)

      • loupgarous

        Well, teddy’s “enhanced” by something strong if he believes that Democratic kakistocracy is long for the world. Plausible support exists already for the three Articles of Impeachment that brought Nixon down. It was pretty easy to see by the end of Spring 2009 that Obama had all the weak points of Richard Nixon without a single one of Nixon’s redeeming characteristics. Obama has done everything possible to create the least transparent and honest government America has had in decades.

        • Joel Wischkaemper

          Boehner has been very clear: he will not be part of an impeachment, and I believe he is powerful enough that he can make it stick.
          I agree he should not be impeached. If there were three more years, I would be worried, but 2016 is close, and the Democratic Party is playing to the coming elections and the whole body of the American Voters.

  • Weswieann

    Surprised that even though it’s the farthest thing from the truth, Goldberg’s obsession with demonizing Ted Cruz didn’t somehow make him the “impeachment villain” in this article. Not even a mention, Bernie? Kudos!

  • lemonfemale

    (sigh). The usual pejoratives. “crazies” “ideologically pure” and so forth. It seems you can make a case that this is unwinnable without calling people names. Not that he’s made that case. Besides, he’s wrong. Before Palin there was liberal icon former ACLU board member Nat Hentoff. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/109908-liberal-icon-obama-destructive-dangerous-president-weve-ever/ written January 21, 2014. He asks “How is it possible that Barack Obama evade impeachment proceedings if We the People are to remain meaningfully Americans?” (Jewish World Review 7/16/14)
    Are we at that point? That’s a good question and calling someone names does not answer it.

  • Bob Hadley

    Bernie,

    There’s a time for pragmatism and a time for principle. If those individuals in GOP House really and truly think that Pres. Obama is a tyrant, a dictator and is flagrantly, repeatedly and in bad faith violating the COTUS, then they should push for impeachment. Politicking (in this case, a popularity contest) should not be a factor when our democracy is on the chopping block.
    I agreed with VP Cheney when a reporter told him that the Iraq war as unpopular, and the VP famously quipped “So?” Once we’re involved in a war, we should not make decisions concerning strategy and tactics according to popularity. Perhaps just as importantly, if and when our democratic is being trampled, appropriate protective measures must be taken by our elected official irrespective of popular opinion.

    During Pres. Clinton’s impeachment process, the House GOP leaders said that they didn’t care if impeachment was unpopular because the principle was so important. Even though I disagreed with Pres. Clinton’s impeachment, I agreed with the sentiment expressed. I’m not sure that all of their motives were so pristine, however I agreed they should follow their consciences.
    Of course, I think that Pres. Obama hasn’t committed any impeachable offenses. But the offenses he’s alleged to have committed are much more serious that Pres. Clinton lying about sex under oath or try to mislead a potential witness about his extramarital affair. In Pres. Clinton’s case, as with many or most controversial issues, it was not entirely black-and-white.
    Herein lies the rub. I think most or all of the GOP power brokers do not really believe Pres. Obama is as bad as he’s portrayed, notwithstanding strong disagreements over policy. But stoking anger and resentment, they’re kept in power and the money flows in. I think this presents a much bigger threat to our democracy than anything Pres. Obama has done.

    • Seoulman

      I believe that the Dems who are crying “wolf” about impeachment are tacitly admitting that they know BHO has conducted himself in such a manner that equates to high crimes and misdemeanors; therefore, calls for impeachment are believable to a segment of the population.
      Impeachment proceedings are most probably the right thing to do but, in my view, it would be political suicide for the GOP.

    • sgthappyg

      President hasn’t committed any impeachable offenses? How about flagrant disregard for laws and criminal behavior? Below is a list of laws the President should be arrested for by not enforcing deportation. He is aiding and abetting, harboring, encouraging and inducing this criminal activity. He needs to be arrested first, then impeached.
      ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
      Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2)… prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

      Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

      Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

      Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

      • Bob Hadley

        You obviously haven’t thought through this matter. To rise to a criminal act (e.g. concealment) you must point to specific conduct that makes that conduct illegal, NOT supporting or engendering a policy that, in your unhumble opinion, creates the effect of violating a criminal statute. You also have to consider countervailing statutes allowing or even mandating the very conduct that you think is criminal..
        Apparently, you’re trying to use criminal statutes to meet your political ends.

    • Jeff Webb

      >>But stoking anger and resentment, they’re kept in power and the money
      flows in. I think this presents a much bigger threat to our democracy
      than anything Pres. Obama has done.<<

      Ironically, Obama regularly stokes anger & resentment in his fundraising efforts.

      You've repeatedly said the GOP should impeach Obama if they truly think he's guilty of impeachable offenses. Fair enough, but does your wanting them to do that have anything at all to do with the political price they'd pay for doing it?

      • Bob hadley

        Fair question.
        It might have something to do with it. I am human, after all.
        In ’06 when the House Dems were talking impeachment, I not only disagreed with them but I thought that impeachment would be politically unpopular. I thought they should push for impeachment if they truly thought Pres. G W Bush committed impeachable offenses, however. I admit though that I was not as vocal about it.
        Whatever his excesses, to my knowledge Pres. Obama has not accused GOP leaders or the House GOP of being tyrants, dictators, or of maliciously mangling the COTUS. I’m unaware of him accusing them of crimes or dastardly deeds – other than obstructionism (and I agree with him there). He has not blatantly attacked their integrity.

        • Jeff Webb

          >>It might have something to do with it. I am human, after all.<<

          Then the next time you feel like criticizing others' political calculations, just remind yourself they're human.

          • Bob Hadley

            “political calculations”????????????? And look who’s talking! You do a lot of trash talking. Who have I accused of being a tyrant, a dictator and of maliciously trampling in the COTUS? I have accused the political conduct of some of being a threat to our democracy, but I back it up with specifics.
            If you read my post carefully and others on this website, you’d know that even when I feel passionate about an issue, I use critical thought as a stabilizer. Critical thought tames passion.
            I criticize ideologues who either don’t know what critical thinking is or avoid it. I also voice disagreements with some of those who do employ critical thought. It’s just that we disagree.
            I also criticize those who demonize those they disagree with. I think you’re guilty of some of this, but you seem short on critical thought.

          • Jeff Webb

            Calm down, Bob.

            You can fancy yourself as thoughtful and objective all you want, but you’re no less partisan than anyone else.
            You’re just being defensive because I pointed that out. Get over it.

          • Bob Hadley

            That’s an artful dodge! You evaded every point I made by making the bald statement that I’m just as partisan as anyone else. That’s the “everyone does it” or “you do it too” defense.
            You apparently think that partisanship is antithetical to “thoughtful and objective.” It might be so to objective, but it certainly is not so to thoughtful. There are thoughtful partisans on all points of the political spectrum. There are also ideologues (those who don’t rely on fact based analysis) on all points of the political spectrum.
            Yes, I’m partisan. But, I also judge issues on a fact based analysis and on reasonable inferences based on facts. I test my ideas by seeking out various perspectives. Do my inferences or does my analysis ever exceed the factual basis? But, as I also said, I’m open to varying perspectives and try to approach all issues critically.
            BTW, I think you confuse defensiveness and honesty. Think about it…….

          • Joel Wischkaemper

            All of us.. everyone of us.. should understand that the President has done an enormous amount of fund raising. Enormous amount.
            I don’t know how it works for the Democrats, but Obama is going to be writing the instructions for the Democratic Candidates, and establishing a lot of the issues. He got the money.. he gets the say. We need to start giving that a lot of thought right away.

  • Brian Stover

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
    Obama plays golf.

    I fear the results will be similar.

    I hope Obama resigns.

    • loupgarous

      Don’t count on it. That would require a sense of shame stemming from a sense that one had done wrong. We seem to be afflicted with an entirely amoral President.

      Nixon was accused (most loudly by the drug-crazed loon Hunter S. Thompson) of being amoral, but decided to leave office rather than stand trial in the Senate, even though it’s unlikely two-thirds of that body would have found him guilty. Some vestige of morality caused Richard Nixon to board that jet for San Clemente rather than brazen it out.

      Impeachment in this case isn’t likely to give us a verdict of guilty in the Senate. Why draft Articles of Impeachment, then? Because it’s the right thing to do. Because we pay our Congressmen to defend our right to a government of laws and not men.

      And because if the Senate Demiocratic Caucus smugly thinks they’ll be able to sit on their collective asses and be the rubber stamp for a tyrant with a pen and a phone, perhaps we owe them the chance to explain to their constituents why each of them voted to keep a crook in office.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    So just what does this right wing lunatic fringe we keep hearing about believe anyway? And what makes their beliefs so loony? Take abortion, most tea party types oppose it. But if you just do a smidgeon of online research, you’ll find so do around 50% of all Americans? (I’d call that fringe). Take marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Just a smidge of research and once again support is around 50%. (yep, another fringe). How about deficits and debts? Once again most folks think spending more than you receive is a bad idea. (totally fringe thinking here). What about open borders or “illegal immigration”? Most folks think we should vet those who cross and then they should only cross with permission (and NOT break the law). Can you say what totally whacked out thinking). While true, (some real nut bar) right wing types, do think Israel doesn’t have to just sit idly by and be rocketed and bombed, turns out most normal folks share this view as well. It doesn’t matter where you look, when you look into “right wing” political beliefs, the only folks calling them fringe are Marxists, (and their “useful idiot” dupes, as Lenin called them) and their media accolytes.

  • Russ Perrine

    The Constitution of our country was not violated in Libya or any other country. What counts is a violation of a specific law or obstruction of justice. All this would have been avoided had Congress passed a one term POTUS lasting six years. They have never even discussed the matter after Richard Nixon offered it just prior to his own resignation. That alone tells you it must be a good idea…

    • Iggy Autry

      Eh, it’s worth debating, but South Korea does a 1-term, 5-year presidency, and it isn’t an improvement, in my opinion. The presidency is weak enough with the lame duck period we have now. I don’t like the fact 1st term presidents spend much of their time campaigning for a second term — but — that does offer some level of control (like Clinton). A president who can’t get reelected from the start my try to be far stronger while in office – unless other curbs are put on…which would give more power to a Congress that has to listen less to the voting masses than 1 man in the executive branch…

    • loupgarous

      Russ, a one-term Presidency simply makes every newly-elected President a lame duck. Every grumpy old fart from the Birth of the Republic has said “Boy, make ME President! I’d only be there one term, but I’d clean house/kill all the (insert name of people he didn’t like)/hang all the lawyers!” While the last option has its charms, there has, by the law of averages to be one attorney who doesn’t deserve to be the guest at a neck-tie party.

  • Drew Page

    While I believe there are grounds for Obama’s impeachment, I believe it would be a terrible political mistake to attempt this. Impeachment proceedings are just the diversion the democrats have been praying for to shift the national focus away from Obama’s policy failures, endless scandals and failed leadership. Instead of having to defend continued high unemployment; the slowest economic recovery since the Depression; Obama Care; IRS targeting; NSA spying; Benghazi; the flood of illegal immigration; Executive branch overreach; and the release of five Taliban terrorist commanders, the Democrats would much rather attack Republicans as “racists” who only want to overturn the Obama’s legitimate re-election because he is black, pro-choice, favors same sex marriage and free contraception.

    Sarah Palin should know that she is playing into the hands of the Democrats by calling for Obama’s impeachment. Clinton was impeached after having committed perjury, he wasn’t convicted in the Senate and became more popular than ever. Look at the money he has made making speeches after he left office; it made Bubba a multimillionaire. Is it any wonder that he is smiling all the time? Even if the House were to impeach Obama, the Senate would never convict him, even if it came to them prior to the expiration of Obama’s term.

    I believe that an attempted impeachment at this time would cost the Republicans the Senate and possibly the House. It would be a pyrrhic “victory”. There is a difference between being right and “dead right”. Cautious people look both ways when crossing an intersection, even though the have a green light.

    • Terrence Trent D’Arby

      “Sarah Palin should know” — should never be used in a sentence.
      She couldn’t name a newspaper. She couldn’t name a single newspaper. Darn gotcha MSM!!!

  • Iggy Autry

    I realized today – my parents generation is on the way out. Won’t be long now. My grandparents – that Greatest Generation – is memory.

    …that is fading fast.

    In a couple of decades – WWII will be little more than the Russo-Japanese War in terms of reality —- only meaning more because it can survive on the action and high-drama films it can make – for about a quarter to half a century more – but probably less…

    Jews – if you are under 30 – I honestly wouldn’t get comfortable…

    …and for the record…I’m not much of an extremist, doom-sayer…

    If God doesn’t step in, as the living memory of The Holocaust and what it meant to civilization dies —– I don’t think you’re going to find you’ll be resting comfortably with everybody else… I don’t see us “progressing” on that front…

    Today, while watching German’s excellent mini-series Generation War — I had to say – this feeling of deep pessimism that came to mind —– fit.

    • Mark W.

      It is imperative that the history of the 20th Century is taught, learned and not forgotten. We can look back with 20/20 vision and see how and why events unfolded in Europe in the early part of the century. As we live day-to-day, it is hard to notice and sort out all of the information that bombards us. We can’t see the incremental steps that occur, leading to inevitable results. But, by knowing the past, we can compare the similarities of events and attitudes then and now, weighing the possibilities of outcomes. This is why we must be vigilant and speak out when we see actions, hear or read comments and threats against groups of people. FDR imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans with a stroke of his pen in an Executive Order. Today we see an increase in anti-Semitism; we also see increasing animosity toward our senior citizens. Given the right circumstances, Obama may use his pen for another Executive Order… while people stand silent.
      .
      Times change; people do not.

      • Iggy Autry

        I have a sinking feeling – the lessons from The Greatest Generation bringing us close to annihilation – are being rapidly lost and won’t be recovered.

        We had a window of opportunity to learn, but I think today – we didn’t…

        I think the peak of progress has already been reached – probably in the late-1990s. I think that is what history is going to record 100 years from now.

        What is holding us together? Domestically and globally?

        Too much has been active for decades that eradicates one way or another what we should have learned.

        Jews are not in a strong position to counter a backslide…

  • buckrodgers

    Do you ever wonder why so many Americans think comedy central is Americas news network and comedian journalist like John Stewart is a legitimate news anchor, it doesn’t even seem to bother honest hardworking journalist, that once reputable and reliable news outlets like the AP and Reuters have been forced to put the garbage they print on Yahoo where anybody with a computer can mock and make fun of them, the media is turning into a three ring circus, with a bunch of clown journalist running around with a press card in one hand and a worthless and they discounted Politzer in the other, that’s why nonsense like this makes headlines, because their is no why the Senate, which is controlled by Harry Reid and the Democrats would ever vote to impeach President Obama and the media knows it and refuses to call out President Obama, Sarah Palin or anybody else who makes ridiculous claims so the next question has to be why is this happening, we all know that white Democrats who control the party, depend on African Americans to win elections, if they stay home on election day, white Democrats will lose, so they have no incentive to criticize a president who controls ninety percent of the black vote, even the gun toting Joe Manchan was forced to lead the antigun movement at the request of President Obama, so the next question is the media, during the sixties, white liberals took control of and even today Hollywood,the media and academia are still controlled by Americas first generation of cowards,who used their white privileges to hide in college to avoid the draft, these are individuals who left their all white suburban homes, went down to Mississipi to march with African Americans, who were fighting for basic civil rights, only to return to their Lilly white world,declare themselves the self appointed spokesperson and Savior of African Americans and other minorities, which somehow gave them the right to live and act like white supremacist, while they run around the country labeling everybody but themselves a racist, so it amazes me that Republicans and people of good will have been silenced by a bunch of closet racist, the me me generation is aging, filled with botox they stubbornly refuse to turn over the reigns to the next generation to chart their own course.

  • VermontAmerican

    I’d be considered one of those “fringe rightwingers,” Bernie. But it would be futile and self-destructive for Republicans to attempt to unseat the first black president. I think Obama is trying to exact from the Republicans such a vehement denial of impeachment, that it will give him carte blanche to keep flaunting our laws, like unlawfully granting amnesty to millions of illegals. Then, when impeachable offenses arise, the Dems can accuse Repubs of going back on their word.

  • Brian Stover

    One can be impeached for “High crimes and misdemeanors.”
    Incompetence is not an impeachable offense.
    We can survive another couple of years of Obama, though we will suffer serious damage.

    • joepotato

      Impeachment can be for anything the congress chooses… Soetoro/ Obama may be inept, but he’s far more treacherous than he is inept… It’s no accident he is dismantling the nation with the approval of his NWO bankster overlords… Obie is a fraud with the fake ID to prove it…

    • Jenn

      Obummer never did care about America!

    • Drew Page

      Yes, I agree that we can survive Obama. What we can’t survive is the continued mentality of those that elected and re-elected him.

  • brickman

    Once the election is over Republicans will rev up the impeachment talk. Even you admit it Bernie. It polls well with republicans and conservatives. However it’s opposed by democrats, independents, whites, blacks, latins, men, women, college educated, non college, people over 50 and people under 50 . So the GOP are not going to talk about it until after the election when people can’t do anything about it. Alinsky and Lenin would be so proud.

    • Tim Ned

      Unfortunately you are right. My GOP has loons that many believe are outside of the scope of mainstream. Unfortunately, you Dem’s have your loons that you consider within the scope of the main stream.

      So the next elections, the GOP is going to have to try to rein these loons in. Something your party doesn’t have to worry about.

      • brickman

        I’m a registered Republican who votes for them for state and county offices. I don’t vote for them nationally now that Jon Runyan is retiring.

    • MarioG

      The biggest enemies of America today include the liberal 4th. Estate that has become an unabashed 5th. Column.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      >>Once the election is over Republicans will rev up the impeachment talk

      Not unless something major happens, like Obama being linked to the IRS scandal, or something along those lines.

      • brickman

        Republicans have called for impeachment of the President for the implementation of sequester cuts, over Fast and Furious, the Boston Marathon bombing, Solyndra and immigration reform. They will find something. Although he is not an elected official Michael Savage called for Obama’s impeachment on Feb. 4, 2009( 2 weeks after inauguration) . Rep. Issa in May 2010. I think the interesting thing on threads that I have been reading are posters saying that the GOP shouldn’t talk about impeachment now because it could hurt electoral success in the Senate elections but afterwards it’s an open subject. Alinsky and Lenin would be proud of such efforts of deception.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Now, go back to that Wikipedia page that you got that from and tell me who actually called for Obama’s impeachment.

          Saying that something might be an impeachable offense is a far cry from actually calling for impeachment. Dems did that all the time under Bush, which I’m sure you were really broken up over.

          If insane Michael Savage, for whom I’ve never met a fan, is your best example, you should probably cower your head in embarrassment right about now.

    • Drew Page

      Why don’t we wait and see what happens with the November elections? I believe that Boehner showed good judgement in dismissing the idea that the Republicans will pursue the impeachment

      of the President. All that would do is shift focus away from Obama’s failed policies, the endless scandals and failed leadership.

      The smart move for Republicans is to talk about cutting taxes for businesses and individuals at all income levels; becoming energy independent; creating good paying jobs; immigration reform that includes increasing legal immigration, guest worker programs and border enforcement and putting an end to government collection and storage of phone records, e-mails and electronic communications of American citizens without probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge, as required by the Constitution.

  • Gloria

    Sarah Palin is irrelevant. If she is not irrelevant to all, she should be irrelevant to MOST. Sarah Palin – nice lady, good mom, wouldn’t mind having her for neighbor, etc. – but part of the Republican establishment?? She ain’t.
    Liked McCain long ago, but cannot ever forgive him for introducing her to the voting public thereby elevating her to some level of importance on the national scene, possibly likening her to someone who actually is a typical Republican women – when, as I said she is – and should be – IRRELEVANT.

    • El_Tigre_Loco

      She was Dan Quailed.

      • Gloria

        And she made it so easy.

        • Drew Page

          Right up until the time she called for impeachment, I would have disagreed with you. I agree that there are grounds for impeachment, but is would be a very bad political move and would cost Republicans any chance at winning the Senate and could possibly lose them the House majority.

    • Luis

      I sat out the 2008 election – no way would I have voted for McCain, after he promulgated the McCain-Feingold Act, which attempted to criminalize free speech by organizations like NRA, while giving Old Media a pass. He’s also trying for a posthumous pardon for the whoremongering Jack Johnson.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    I would support impeachment if 1. There was actually a chance of it happeneing, and 2. If it actually meant something. Clinton was impeached and what happened to him? Not a darn thing. Obama should be tried for treason.

  • Bob Z.

    I stand with Blakely1 on the one point that the Republican Party is committing the act of what Saul Alinsky recommends that the Socialist Party do to the opposition, which is Divide and Conquer your Enemy. The Tea Party does this when they challenge a fellow Right Wing candidate who’s facing a sitting or retiring Democrat. The vote is split in the primary and then there’s a sit out Right Wing vote for the winning Republican or Tea Party candidate. The likelihood then is the Democrat challenger walks in, just as what happened in Delaware. She wasn’t the best candidate but she won the primary, the Republicans should’ve supported her and brought the party together. Don’t let the other party dictate our positions on our fellow Republicans. Like we hear so often, you don’t see the Democrats do this to each other. the moderate Democrat doesn’t ever attack the Far Left Liberal.

  • justintime

    As much as I would love to see Obama impeached, I have to agree with Bernie’s political wisdom. Those of us who want to see Obama condemned to oblivion, could win the battle but lose the war.

    • AnMar22

      Bernie makes sense. Also, if obama is impeached, (Oh, I’d love that!) we’d have dopey Joe Biden for pres. Worse, still.

  • LHS

    The current GOP is a disgrace.

  • brad ghorn

    Sarah Palin is a nobody. She is not an elected representative for anyone. The far left love talking about her because she is so unpopular with moderates. It is a waste of time for any Republican to talk about her at all.

  • Loboman52

    Sarah Palin and former Rep. Allan West are NOT, I repeat NOT current office holders and DO NOT speak for the vast majority of Republicans. Thank goodness.

  • Blakely1

    There was a time when I defended the Tea Party but that ship has sailed.
    There is something about winning that they don’t get.They would rather
    have our country go the way of Mexico & live under Democratic rule
    than pick an obvious winner.To me that is just plain stupid.
    We have a great chance of defeating Mary Landrieu in LA but the Tea Party
    has put a candidate in place, who is nice enough but doesn’t have the
    money or support to win. LA has an open primary & the top two face
    a run off. Cassidy might be able to take her out without a runoff but
    with the Tea Party splitting the vote, it is unlikely.
    What is wrong with these people???
    IMO, their intransigent ways are damaging the Party
    & the Country.

    • Loboman52

      I totally agree. I’d much rather see a Republican in office that I can agree with the majority of the time than a “Republican” in office who hasn’t a clue with the art of compromise and would have us all running off the cliff like a bunch of lemings.

      • El_Tigre_Loco

        Well, even if the Republican is not idealogically pure, the system works on the party system. The party with the most members pick the committee chairmanships and have a lot of power.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Yes, Republicans should become more like lefties, (Democrats) who are disingenuous, dissembling, and prevaricating. You know, the kind for whom “the ends justifies the means”.

      • Blakely1

        I do not subscribe to our becoming liars but I do think
        that we should wise up. We should start uniting around
        a single premise or candidate. Compromise is not a dirty word.
        In any facet of life we have to sometimes give in.
        Any marriage where only one person rules the roost
        is usually unhappy. Life is give & take.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Traditionalist have all but compromised American civilization into the ground? I used to negotiate with a union. They’d ask for the moon, then complain we wouldn’t compromise. The left (with complicit media) has been doing that for years. All compromising has achieved is a Nation looking more and more like Europe (where they love to compromise with the left). Are 750 billion dollar deficits really a good compromise to trillion dollar deficits? Once a principle is compromised, it really is no longer a principle.

          • Blakely1

            You are right & you are wrong. One has to have the wisdom to know when to hold them & when to fold them.Every situation is not worth a fight.
            As Jefferson said,
            ” On issues of style, go with the current.
            On issues of principle, stand like a rock.”
            Money is the House’s chief tool.They need to use
            it wisely & take a page from the Democratic
            handbook. For every acceptance or rejection of
            spending, they have to have a good reason that
            resonates with the people & they need to spread
            that message out to every media that they can
            muster and every Republican should be prepared
            to make it appealing.We have to dispel the idea
            that we do not care about people.

            Take illegals, we should make it clear that
            Republicans are concerned about the unemployed
            in this country & show how they have taken
            jobs away from Americans. Get data, give examples,
            show how illegals have taken over the construction
            jobs. We need to be prepared.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            “Dispel the notion we do not care about people”? The only notion that traditionalists and conservatives don’t care about people, is the notion promulgated by the left wing media and Democrats. Believe me here is NOTHING, and I mean nothing you can do that will change that. For 30 years now traditionalists have “compromised”, and the Nation is becoming an absolute basket case. You think there is nearly 20 trillion worth of debt? Think again. Add in total Federal, State, Municipal (and don’t forget County) and add in their unfunded liabilities and you’re looking at more like 200+ trillion! In fact, paying this back is no longer even possible. That is, your Government (meaning you) plans to stiff their creditors in one way or another. (and this is just one example, I have dozens). These compromises have turned American’s (by political proxy) into liars and cheaters on a vast scale. Which of course is inevitable, if you believe (as liberal types do) that “the ends, justifies the means”.

          • Blakely1

            Then prepare to live under Democratic rule (meaning you) . Not me, I want this country to survive & prosper again & that means winning elections again.If you think
            that your way will do that then you are mistaken. All
            you do is alienate independents, who we need to win.
            In your own way, you are as big an ideologue as Obama
            but without power, you are powerless.I want to take away his power & with some wisdom & hard work,
            we can do it.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            The only difference between “Rino’s” and Democrats is nothing. At least Democrats admit they’re leftists. So what good is winning an election with leftist lite, vs leftist heavy? At least with leftist heavy you’ll get backlash. With leftist light there is no where else to go. (but down)

    • Drew Page

      You didn’t mind the Tea Party when their involvement provided the Republicans the House majority in 2010. Every party has its fringe, look no further than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. But it is unfair and stupid to believe that those on the fringe represent everyone in their party, whether it be the Democrat party, Republican party or the Tea party. Not very Democrat is a communist; not every Republican is a wealthy industrialist and not every Tea party supporter is a radical. For the most part, Tea party supporters are average people who believe in smaller government, lower taxes, working for a living and a strong defense. Unfortunately, at the last election there were a significant number of conservative voters who didn’t vote for Romney because they thought he wasn’t “conservative enough”. It cost Romney the election. It cost the rest of us what we have to deal with today.

      • Blakely1

        I was one of the Tea Parties biggest supporters.
        I said that.
        Do you have any proof that Romney lost
        because he wasn’t conservative enough or is that
        just your opinion? I believe that he lost because
        Democrats were able to get out their voters
        & many Evangelicals did not like him because
        he was a Mormon.
        I judge by actions & the facts that I have stated
        about LA are true. If Landrieu wins it will because
        of the Tea Party candidate & possibly because
        La politics are notoriously crooked.

    • Luis

      @Blakely1 –

      You bring up some excellent points – I believe the tea party is happy cutting off its nose to spite its own face, and they don’t care what happens. Consider:

      in 2012, a “tea-party favorite” Indiana senate candidate, Mourdock uttered some stupid thing about rape victims. Democrats seized on it, and he got trounced.

      A “tea party favorite” senate candidate, whitman, in CT said she’s “not a witch” – and she got trounced.

      In Nevada, another “tea party favorite” Sharron Angle said stupid things, and she got trounced by Harry Reid.

      What really out-Heroded Herod was the tea party trotting out its 2012 pet negro, Herman Cain; he actually had delusions of winning the presidential nomination after the Iowa caucuses. Only the sex-abuse allegations crashed that ship. But the tea party didn’t care. They’re trotting out another pet negro for 2016, Ben Carson. It’s like it’s trying to out-negro the Demcrats.

      The tea party does absolutely NOTHING to the Democrats, while it splinters the Republicans. It’s candidate in MS lost to Thad Cochran, and threw a tantrum, like a child who wants a new toy, but mommy won’t buy it for him. Instead of now getting behind Cochran, it’ll throw a hissy fit and stay home on election day, thereby maybe handing a Senate seat to the Democrats. Maybe that’s what TF they want all along.

  • Shane

    Yes, I do want Obama impeached, but I know that it is not going to happen unless the GOP wins every Senate race this election. It is not likely to happen. It is hard to get the message out about how badly Obama is running our country with the liberals in control of most of the news and entertainment media.

    • brickman

      Plus Obama kept winning elections. If you wanted him gone, that was your chance.

  • Buzzeroo

    If ever a president should be impeached it is this bozo……so it is a matter of when and not if. Since even the mention of doing what is absolutely warranted to this out lawless president promulgates loyalty and support for him and his party amongst American voters, it has to be avoided until it could be made to actually go to completion—meaning only if and when a sitting senate that is capable of fairly adjudicating his case exists. That desirable state of affairs is vested in the ousting of the despotic Harry Reid and his ridiculously biased democrap majority come November. A long time ago, a republican majority in the senate would have convicted Nixon in a heart beat but there isn’t a glimmer of a chance that a democrat senate would convict Obama even were there to be a video showing him committing murder on the floor of their chamber. So Palin et al can talk and advocate now so as to keep the concept alive while the president foolishly commits more and graver offenses in an effort to taunt other republicans to impeach him before the upcoming election …..which, if it goes their way will sink him but good in every legislative manner and get him impeached AND convicted as well along with his villainous Attorney general and others of his merry anarchic gang.

  • Gerry T

    First, we have the ” middle of the winding road” John McCain to thank for Sarah Palin. She was a terrible, terrible choice for VP. She was a screw ball but neither McCain nor his handlers recognized her lack of qualifications to be a potential POTUS. I have yet to read one poster expressing the real reason the impeachment of the most arrogant, most divisive, least competent president in the history of our country would be a horrible idea. Do any of these good posters recall what happened following the murder of Rev. Martin Luther King? Do they not remember “Burn Baby Burn? I feel certain Bernie understands.

    • docneaves

      Bring it on. Why should we live in fear? I’m sick and tired of being called a racist with these idiots threatening violence if we don’t worship them just because they’re black. Want a race riot? Bring it on, you are slightly outnumbered, as they say.

      • brickman

        Because that’s the only two options 1. YOU get your way or 2. race riots.

    • Blakely1

      Do you want to have another two years like the last 6.
      I certainly don’t. Impeachment is not popular with the people
      & especially independents.
      65 % of Americans do not want him impeached.
      Why alienate the majority of Americans before an election?
      Right now we have a good chance of taking the Senate,
      which will change the dynamics in this country.
      Impeachment would defeat us.

    • rider237

      you do realize that McCain was dead in the water before he picked her? she reached the base, something he could not do. even so, he could not overcome his lack of, well, lack of anything useful, to win. HE was the bad choice.

    • Luis

      I remember all too well. The angry negro is much more of a threat, than all of North Korea’s nuclear Taepdong missiles arrayed at Berkeley, CA.
      The rioting negro is anarchy in action.

  • Eagle101

    Mr. Goldberg, what’s so crazy about wanting to impeach the President? Because of the political suicide that you mentioned? So what?! Are we to simply let a person circumvent the Constitution at whim because it’s not viable politically to do so? I sometimes think you truly lack the fortitude that you display on TV and in your books.

    • Iggy Autry

      Impeachment as political expediency is as wrong when Mr. Goldberg advocates it as it is for the type of fringe right-wing nut he describes.

      I’m any president truly has shown by his actions he believes he and his people are above the law, they should be Impeached – regardless of what happens politically to either party…Period.

    • Iggy Autry

      (“Fortitude” isn’t the right word. I was trying to find a more appropriate synonym for “understanding” and ran across a definition that sadly fits the fallen nature of contemporary American society:

      2. (archaic) having insight or good judgment.

      Yes, I guess having the general ability to understand diverse issues on a rational level has become archaic….)

      • El_Tigre_Loco

        It is a strange world. The Republicans can better but can’t get elected and the Demoncrats can get elected but can’t govern worth a damn.

  • Native Son

    Ok, here’s a fantasy: Obama is impeached and removed from office. Joe “Gaff-mouth” Biden assumes the Presidency. As an incumbent Democrat for a year and a half, he will have an advantage in 2016. In the early 1960′s, Lyndon Johnson was not particularly popular nationally… but he was elected in ’64, although his re-election would not have happened four years later, had he run. Gerald Ford lost a lot of support when he stood for election in ’76 because of his pardon for Nixon. We got Carter. So… until 2016, better the devil we got, than the devil we might get?
    The Republicans must concentrate on winning the Senate this year. Then we might have enough power to somehow limit this out of control president.

    • floridahank

      I agree that the bigger issue is as you said, “The Republicans must concentrate on winning the Senate this year. Then we might have enough power to somehow limit this out of control president.”
      I can’t pick out the GOP leaders who would be the most intelligent and competent to put together a political marketing plan to keep hammering away the next few months — try to show the significant voter population how bad Obama has been to the working, tax paying people. We have to look at this as a war plan that will win — take no prisoners — defeat them thoroughly so we get decent leadership in DC. We don’t people like Karl Rove, etc. who might be able to gather $$$, but he should have no decision making with the possible candidates. If we work together and not let selfishness and vanity and ego be part of our plan, we can definitely beat many Dem’s — they are at a disadvantage if they stand behind many of Obama’s disastrous decisions.

  • Iggy Autry

    “A corrupt and apostate government cannot possibly impeach a corrupt and apostate President. – From toddyo1935 below

    That is the interpretation I had of Mr. Goldberg’s idea…

    Has American society really fallen to the point the Constitution and Law are just tools of expediency for this or that group or party?

    Have we really become so contemptible?

    Sadly, those are not rhetorical questions aimed at shaming us… They are real…

  • Iggy Autry

    “because he committed impeachable offenses. They may be right.”

    That is sad. A sad commentary on what American society and American politics has become.

    1 president lies under oath, gets impeached, and it does nothing much to harm him or his party beyond the event itself, and now Impeachment is ho-hum nothing.

    It was a nuclear option only breathed of hypothetically as a last resort when a president demonstrates he acts as if he is above the law. A president deciding telling lies under oath is just part of the sport rose to that level in my opinion. But, if Republicans keep running it out as an idea each new Democrat in office, Impeachment does become a farce.

    But, if Obama has committed impeachable offenses, he should be Impeached, and yes, politics be d@mned…

    I don’t like Mr. Goldberg’s idea of having Impeachment out there as a political tool to use when and if it serves a political purpose any more than I do anyone else’s – like Republicans who might come away from Clinton thinking they can do it to others regularly – or Democrats who constantly clamored for it with Bush (also after Clinton had it done to him).

    Maybe I’m naive, and I mean that. I remember reading someone once saying the people in the Nixon camp couldn’t believe what was happening to them because —- the things they’d done were – commonplace. That the Johnsons and Kennedys of the past must be scratching their heads in confusion because it was just politics as usual in the American state…

    I know Clinton thought lying under oath was just what you do in today’s contemporary court…

    If Mr. Goldberg think Obama probably has done things that would warrant Impeachment if it weren’t politically harmful to Republicans to do it — I guess maybe what the Nixon people said might be true… (Meaning in part – although Mr. Goldberg wants to see Impeachment return to the type of unthinkable nuclear option it was in the past – he doesn’t view the use of it as ‘sometimes necessary when a president breaks the law’ – but is describing it as a political option of last resort…)

    Maybe parties and politicians have forever been treating laws like suggestions to follow only in relation to the likelihood you’ll get caught coupled with the political repercussions…

    Maybe Impeachment is just like the court where it concerns upholding the law of the land where it concerns red lights on an empty street at 3 AM….(What percentage of drivers would be stupid enough to wait on that?)…

    • docneaves

      I’ll tell you who waits at the red light at 3 a.m. Someone who’s seen a wreck because someone else RAN that light at 3 a.m. and someone else thought that they lived in a land of laws and thought that green meant go. Please, next time, just sit there.

  • WVF

    The GOP does what it does best . . . ignore their constitutional obligation because of fear of Democrats. Goldberg et. al make me sick! This creep should have been impeached in his first term, and I am not a right wing idiot! I am an American who believes that the Constitution is our guiding document. This guy has committed so many impeachable offenses that I’ve finally lost count. This perp is the first dictator of this country that I’ve seen in my lifetime.

    • docneaves

      His first crime is identity theft, with a proven-false birth certificate and a Connecticut SSN that can’t possibly be his legally. But no investigation whatsoever.

      • El_Tigre_Loco

        He should not even have been a candidate without revealing his personal history. He said it himself if a person hides something, that something should be all the more exposed.

      • brickman

        Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck all say birthers are really Democrat stooges.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          They do? If so, they’re wrong. It should be noted, however, that it was the president himself who was the originator of the Birther movement years ago when he billed himself as being born in Kenya to help sell his books. Years later, it was revived by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the 2008 Democratic primary. I just wish fringe conservatives hadn’t bought into all the b.s.

      • Terrence Trent D’Arby

        It is great you still exist! You’ve got to keep speaking out loudly about this, brother!
        Make this the midterm issue! You could start a movement… get all your friends together and march!
        Did you know that Obama is (shh!) “muslin”?
        that’s right — I know it’s true because a toothless mouthbreather was holding up a sign that said such … yee haw!
        I think if “you folks” could only make these the highlight issues of the midterm election, then “you folks” will win…
        Keep up the good work, soldier!
        Your post will live in infamy — I have clipped it as proof that true Teabaggery is not dead!

        • docneaves

          Go ahead, completely ignore the issue and ridicule the messenger. Typical Alinsky tactics. Again, no denials, no proof, no nothing. No rebuttal to the twenty-five or so experts who’ve delved into the BC, some going in with the intent of proving it accurate to shut up “mouth-breathers” (where do you breath through your nose all the time, and why would that make you any smarter? What an idiot) like me, and wound up actually moving to the other side. Lots of “mouth-breathers” like me believed 9/11 was real, until we began to look into it. Obama is just a small part of it, but he is the new shill, that replaced the old shill George Bush. It’s not even about Obama, except that they did such a poor job of hiding his past (all those killed and paid off notwithstanding, of course) that we can still find evidence and witnesses of his coke-snorting/crack-smoking gay-bathhouse days. Muslim? What more could you ask for in the way of evidence? He hates Israel, he ignores Christians and Christian holidays while celebrating all of the Muslim ones. Nah, every president we’ve ever had did that, right? You want to see a mouth-breathing sycophant, look in the mirror. I don’t suck up to anyone, don’t trust anyone, and assume EVERYONE in government is lying only when they are speaking, writing, or otherwise communicating.

          • Terrence Trent D’Arby

            O brother…. don’t know how to do “computers”?????

            http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

          • Terrence Trent D’Arby

            What do you say to them apples?
            O right. Facts. You probably aren’t into facts and stuff.

          • docneaves

            If I had time, I could show you all the errors in that snopes article. Here’s a couple of examples:

            “Why Barack Obama’s Social Security card application might have included a Connecticut mailing address is something of a curiosity, as he had no known connection to that state at the time, but by itself that quirk is no indicator of fraud.”
            By itself is no indicator of fraud. But any reasonable investigator would NOT stop until he found out why. Then snopes offers some bullshit explanation of a POSSIBLE mixup because of the similarity of zip code numbers, but, 09 is not the same as 96, or whatever they were. Snopes is supposed to offer evidence, not guesses. The entire article reads like an excuse list from the White House itself.
            Second example? It tried to explain away the tax return with another number saying “he never said he was (whatever his name was)”. Correct, he just used that number. They didn’t deny that he used it, just deflected with a non-answer, a strawman, never explaining why he used it. But he did use it. Why did he use different social security numbers in his life? Can you explain that, because Snopes didn’t. And, you did know that Snopes is a lefty website, right?

            Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp#QQoUCqi07xivk1AU.99

          • Terrence Trent D’Arby

            I presumed it was lefty because it is about getting at the truth… the facts of the matters.
            Like Alex Jones’ website is a “right” website.

          • docneaves

            Then you go read it, and you find out that all of these “discrepancies” have been “corrected”. None of them should have been corrected, but all of them should have been fully explained, not glossed over. I call BS to the snopes article in it’s entirety.

          • Terrence Trent D’Arby

            BZZZZ… You said a mouthful there!
            There are pictures of the Obama’s celebrating x-mas. so, your “he ignores x-ian holidays” is, well… let’s just say it is a little “cuckoo” and leave it at that.
            You used to believe that “9/11″ was real? Uhh… I hate to break the bad news to ya– but it actually was real… I know, pretty hard to believe, huh?
            I believe that you don’t suck up to anyone… heck, they are probably “in on it”, right?
            My advice to you is to use 2-ply aluminum foil in your hat… just layer the sheets, crimp at the edges, then fashion hat as usual… it provides extra protection.
            And a little secret… if you put mayonnaise between the foil layers — you become invincible. don’t tell anyone… especially not “them”…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Can we just all take a step back and appreciate for a moment that Terrence Trent D’Arby has joined us on this website. This is phenomenal!

          • Terrence Trent D’Arby

            Thanks! Appreciate it. I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you.
            While I don’t enjoy playing with the local natives here that much, I feel it is my duty to educate them.
            I’d be happy to send out an autographed photo if you can get me your details.
            thanks again!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Thanks, but your music is gift enough, sir. Your music is gift enough.

    • brickman

      Then why aren’t you worried that by posting this, you’ll end up in a FEMA camp?

  • mike cowan

    Not a Palin fan. Loves the camera as much as Barack.

  • Randy

    It is so unfortunate the republicans lack imagination. The correct answer from Boehner should have been…
    “Well, if the democrats want to impeach their guy, they should start the process!”

  • Daniel

    The progressives have won the battle. Controlling the main stream media and academia was a large part of their success. Creating 50 million democratic voters through opening our borders and paying poor people to have children was also a very effective idea. X number of dollars per child with the only requirement being that daddy needed to abandon the family. Automatic citizenship, and voting rights, if pregnant mommy can make it across the border to an American emergency room. We stood by and did nothing to address the problems that were killing our country. There is however a silver lining. The wealthy elite progressives won’t be celebrating for long if their Cloward/Pivens strategy succeeds in bringing down our constitutional republic. If we don’t regain control of the main stream media and start teaching our children the truth, this will not end well.

    • docneaves

      You don’t understand. Those elites will be in charge of everything, while the resulting army of government dependents will be the proletariat that they love to look down on. They’re not trying to destroy the lower classes, just the middle class, so it’s harder to make it to the upper class.

  • Jeff

    An old adage says, “You can win the battle, but lose the war.” Bernie’s correct: being right (correct) isn’t always the best political reason for action. It’s an Orwellian world at best.

    • WVF

      It’s politics not liberty and freedom!

    • Iggy Autry

      If the battle is righteous – fight it.

      Impeachment shouldn’t become a political tool or game for either party. It should be used in rare cases where a president’s actions violate the law and prove he (and his team) believe they are above it.

      And if Impeaching such a president dooms your party to certain defeat in X number of future elections — so be it…

      But, yes, in American society today, the law is taffy and the courts are just a stadium for a game….

      • Jeff

        “And if Impeaching such a president dooms your party to certain defeat in X number of future elections — so be it…”
        .
        –and the winner is…?
        .
        Another old adage is “You can cut off your nose to spite your face.” Who needs to go around looking like that?

        • Iggy Autry

          The idea that a nation is governed by laws.

          The fact is, ideals define the ultimate success of a society. — If the Law and ideals had meant nothing in America’s past, we never would have seen non-property owners, women, and then minorities gain the right to vote (and many other of those things that our founding father’s described as “inherent” to all mankind).

          Without our naive ideals about the law and the constitution, then the future is bleak, no matter what your polls numbers are going to be this year and the next…

          Inotherwords – If the United States has become a country in which a political party cannot survive if it stands for principles of law and basic right-and-wrong, then, it isn’t much of a country. In fact, it has become contemptible…

          But, maybe in a society in which the media and its entertainment industry and increasingly education have lost the respect they once did hold within it — if we had a party – (with many politicians practicing what they preach) – that showed the masses they DO believe we live in a nation in which law and the constitution actually mean something approaching eternal – rather than what the latest poll numbers say – after the initial setbacks, their stance on principles would win future elections…

          (Meaning in part – one reason an Impeachment of an Obama would harm the current Republican party is – too many people would view it as a hypocritical act by a party as corrupt as the Democrats….)

          • Jeff

            You are very thoughtful, and you make many good points. Yet, in life and in the political world, we need to know when to pick our battles.
            .
            To paraphrase Proverbs, “Whoever brings ruin on their [political party] will inherit the wind.”.

          • Iggy Autry

            I’m not saying Obama should be impeached.

            (I frankly don’t keep up enough with day-to-day items to know, because I’ve become so disgusted with politics in American society in general, I want to wash my hands of the lot and let nature take its ugly course…)

            I am saying I don’t like the idea Mr. Goldberg and others are supporting: That Impeachment should be at the mercy of political expediency….

          • Jeff

            Nor I am I saying Obama should not be impeached. He should be removed from office.
            But we have to look at the long term. Use restraint, build our own positions and be the strong alternative at election time. We should be focused on the fall election, with an opportunity to regain the Senate.

    • Jim

      Your premise is that impeachment would mean the demise of the Republican party and I think that is wrong. If has been’s like Goldberg and the week kneed RINO’s would stand together with people of conviction I believe the country can be swayed on principle to do the right thing. Look at the FILTH the Demonic-rats cling together on. I really find it hard to believe they all agree with that crap but they stand together and sway the vote even if it’s just scare tactics. Republicans have the moral high ground on so many issues but are to chicken to seize it. Lead, follow or get out of the way!!!

  • Terrence Trent D’Arby

    Bernster, these aren’t fringe republicans calling for it… 50% of republicans polled believe Obama is muslim. Another poll showed that 50% of republicans believe they will have to oust Obama from power with guns blazing. That is: 50% of republicans think they will need to kill fellow americans like you and me.
    The entire republican party is refuge for the lunatic fringe now. The entire party has been usurped with conspiracy nuts. Republican SENATORS appear on Alex Jones show — the show that posited Barack used weather weapon technology on Edmund Oklahoma.
    Welcome to the house of fun, Bernster… The republican party is such a poster child for the crazies that their animal should change from an elephant to a rabid howler monkey.
    All the practical, difficult answers come from the left… the left is the party of ideas even if they are just rehashed republican answers from times past.
    We need a true liberal party… not republican-lite. Most of the mouth-breathers on this site have forgotten how progressive Reagan was with respect to almost all in congress — save Bernie Sanders and a few others.
    America has one political party with two right wings.
    Now watch “your herd” stampede… just read the responses. you must be proud to be their King… I must confess that even you don’t deserve them.

    • Iggy Autry

      Some links to the polls would be nice.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      “all practical answers come from the left”. Really? You mean practical things like trillion dollar deficits? Gay marriage? (I’ve heard it called a lot of things, but practical)? And I guess the fact that liberal policies leading to 50% of all American men abandoning their families, is well, practical? In fact,in the black community we now have some 73% of all black babies born to single parent families, (yes, very practical). Worse some 50% are aborted by their mothers. That means a whole communities renewal is over 85% abandoned by their fathers or aborted by their mothers. Very practical, if you’re a die hard racist (and most liberal policy actually is). And open borders are of course entirely practical? I mean why should we even have a border in the first place. (Oh sorry, forgot about that Canadian threat from the north) A nuclear Iran? that sounds practical. A new modern Islamic caliphate threatening world conquest? Very practical. And I love the practicality of a re-energized resurgent Russia. Gotta love the left and their practical solutions. In fact even the very concept of the U.S. republic, is entirely impractical.

    • Stimpy

      Wonderful synopsis of the liberal progressive mindset. Now about seeing the lunatic fringe crazy? Look in the mirror dear.

  • Barbara

    Sarah Palin really needs to go away, and, yes, I am a conservative.

    • rider237

      why? she’s been proven correct in almost all that she said. we didn’t listen. she’s right about impeachment too, but it’s not the practical thing to do. specifically, what do you dislike about her?
      i have one thing….her voice grates on me…but not her positions. :-)

    • WVF

      Where, perhaps your house?

  • Gabe Santiago

    Offended at the notion founding fathers considered “crazies” for providing impeachment. POTUS guilty of high misdemeanors, if not high crime.

    • rider237

      Good point. it also shows a certain ignorance of agenda to call the far left…or any of the left crazies.

      sad day when constitutionalists are labeled thus.

  • toddyo1935

    Mark Levin did a remarkable job outlining the historical and Constitutional reasons that impeachment is the proper way to deal with Obama’s gross malfeasance.
    Sadly, the almost the whole lot in DC took their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution as a rite of passage to unlimited power. A corrupt and apostate government cannot possibly impeach a corrupt and apostate President.
    I heard Boehner’s law suit doesn’t incorporate immigration. I hope that isn’t true.
    The suit, however could expose so much of the corruption from stealing companies, destroying the economy, promoting eugenics, homosexual upending of the social order and facilitating takeover by the ultimate “Church”/state – Islam under Sharia, that even the MSM might catch on like they did with the puny little Watergate fiasco.

    • rider237

      he did, but as a practical matter, we can’t get impeachment and it would be a distraction from the upcoming election. two really good ways to limit him are 1. get the majority in the senate and 2. don’t fund his lawlessness.

      problem is, when you start defunding things, people like our host have a cow about shutting down the government. it is, however, one of the best tools congress has regardless of the election outcome.

  • David Nelson

    They shouldn’t even be suing him! Goldberg is right. Even though HE DESERVES IT, this is insane politics. Let’s say, after creating all that kindling for the Democrats, and somehow convincing six of them in the senate to join in, the Republicans do somehow miraculously manage to drive him out of office. Then what? Half the country will be up in arms as though there were tanks rolling in the streets, hating the Republicans. And what will be the gain? To have Joe Biden president? Biden? Are you impeachers out of your minds? He is even farther left and more clueless than Obama. It will be nothing more than a husband winning an argument with his wife, with the outcome that she is irritable and distant and makes his life miserable with resentment. But at least he was right.

    • MarioG

      Ummm….so, you are saying we should let a lawless renegade president run rough-shod over the country, its Constitution and its traditions because responding will be uncomfortable? Would we even be here if George Washington and the founding fathers thought like you do?

      • WVF

        Good point!

      • David Nelson

        I’m saying, save your political capital for something that will have a better payoff than putting Joe Biden in the White House. George Washington fought and won THE COUNTRY. He didn’t waste energy trying to depose George III. All that would have got him was a vindictive satisfaction, and the grief of watching George IV ascend the throne and continue the same, or worse, policies. Sometimes the utmost in courage is keeping your cool until an opportunity for fruitful action presents itself — like winning the senate.

        • MarioG

          It is only 90 or so days to the elections – no impeachment can succeed with the odious Harry Reid running the Senate like a Mafia Don.

          • Bob Hadley

            Impeachment is solely a function of the House. Once impeached, the case goes to the Senate to vote on removal. Impeachment is to removal as indictment is to conviction. The House is analogous to a Grand Jury while the Senate compares to a regular jury.

          • MarioG

            Good point – which is why no impeachment can succeed as long as Democrat Capo Harry Reid is running the Senate.

          • Bob Hadley

            Again, the entire impeachment process occurs in the House. If and when the president is (fully) impeached, then the Senate takes over from there. I agree with you that Pres. Obama would not be removed in the Senate, even if the R’s take over the Senate.
            But, if Pres. Obama is a bad as some of those in the House GOP say he is, then it’s incumbent on them to push for impeachment, irrespective as to whether Pres. Obama will actually be impeached by a majority in the House or later removed by the Senate.

          • David Nelson

            Every time I see Harry Reid, I think, in another time and place, he would have fit in quite well as a Gauleiter in Hitler’s Germany, or a member of the Central Committee in communist Russia. He seemingly has NO respect for truth or democratic principles.

          • MarioG

            David – the entire Obama “Starting Five” are as corrupt and incompetent as they can be. Check it out. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton coming off the bench, with Bill Clinton as Coach. Good grief! These are NOT your Father’s Democrats. Nixon and his cronies were boy-scouts compered with this crew.

            And yet, because of white guilt over slavery, which is what got Obama elected and re-elected in my opinion, even though his only connection to slavery is slave owners on his Mom’s side, the liberals and our 4th. Estate that has been functioning like a Democrat 5th. Column will protect him no matter what.

          • David Nelson

            The Democrats have moved so far to the left that what used to be seen as the lunatic fringe is now mainstream liberalism — otherwise known as Marxism with a more friendly name. And leftists are righteously convinced they are the holy ones who will be celebrated as heroes by future historians (who, if trends continue, will be leftists themselves). Thus, they are as unwilling to compromise as Islamic terrorists are (which may be why they apologize for terrorism in contradiction to their own values). All told, this is the entire reason for gridlock in congress. The Democrats demand Republicans capitulate 100% to their delusions, and the Republicans are only willing to meet them half way.

    • WVF

      We are not talking about a domestic argument. We are addressing the salvation of America!

  • James

    Upholding the constitution, doing what your constituents elected you to do, Raining in an out of control executive branch that breaks the law at will, If that’s dopey than I’m a dope and you Goldberg and your RINO cohorts are Sad excuses of men! If y’all can’t convince the American people that we are in a severe constitutional crisis against this lame duck failure of a President and Demonic-rat party with all their obstruction and scandals then you and the RINO’s should just shut the hell up and let the men in the room fight. We shouldn’t be running from impeachment but running to or on impeachment and making the case why it is crucial and will benefit the country and maybe save this Republic! If the Demonic-rats can only raise 2 million on impeachment the republicans could raise 100 times that saving the republic by impeachment! If you Goldberg and your RINO cohorts can’t stand on or for SOMETHING other than your wait and see hope you’ll win “the next election and the next election ect. ect.” then shut up and get the heck out of the way!!!!!!!!! The only time Republicans have ever won anything was on ideas like Ronald Reagan, the contract with America and when the grass roots stood with principled candidates, the same thing actually. Your a washed up has been Goldberg, a dinosaur and should be put out to pasture!!!!!!!!

    • WVF

      Goldberg should reprise the role in Weekend at Bernie’s.

    • toddyo1935

      Maybe he’ll study up on the combined principles of subsidiarity and solidarity – personal responsibility and e pluribus unum.
      I think I’m quite a bit older than him, and I’m still learning.

  • John H
  • John H

    Dopey idea? And if I support impeachment I’m a lunatic? What about former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy? He wrote a book on impeaching Obama. Is he a lunatic too? Impeachment is a tool that is in the Constitution. Try reading it sometime, Bernie. Otherwise, you’ll be the lunatic.

  • One Man’s Opinion

    Today’s Dem leadership is all about power, and have become masters of manipulation, deception and propaganda. Now, they have masterfully transformed a threat into an offensive weapon and a fund raising bonanza.
    Having lived through one impeachment trial and watched another be avoided by resignation, I don’t want to see another until there is truly no other option. When it is overtly partisan, as it was in Clinton’s case, we could get into a cycle of retribution impeachments: remember, there were Dem rumblings during W’s administration. (And yes, technically there were grounds for the Clinton impeachment, but they really didn’t rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis. And no, I didn’t like the guy.) So, if it ever gets to the point of serious consideration again, I would hope that it would be based on sufficient hard evidence that would convince at least some on the Left. Otherwise, the Dems will successfully transform it into… yep, another lynching of a black guy.

  • Jarob54

    So the question is to impeach the one who should have never been elected. Seems late in the game for elightment, and the rabid mongrels on the left will howl should the process play out. I don’t care, because if one leaves the one who ascendes is worse. So it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t. But lets consider what’s at stake. The reputation of this nation has sunk lower than the Titanic after kissing the iceberg. We have reduced our military might, the economy is in the tank, and we are importing soon to be democrats from the third world, to be well taken care of on the taxpayers dime. The government uses the IRS as its latter day version of the SS, and we could care less if four Americans are murdered in Benghazi. Adds up to a less than steller accomplishment for the democrats. Perhaps we should just let ride, ride, ride ride let it ride. And you told that you lied, let it ride.

  • Seattle Sam

    Understand this. Impeachment in NOT a LEGAL procedure wherein overwhelmingly evidence results in the conviction of parties not named OJ Simpson. It is a POLITICAL procedure which requires you to build a broad consensus that the person impeached can no longer be trusted with their office.

    • MarioG

      Then it is a perfect forum for impeaching a renegade president now running rough-shod over the Constitution he swore to uphold. However, doesn’t building such a consensus against a black-looking, affirmative action president require more than one smoking gun?

  • 10579

    I am suprised at Goldbergs about the rank and file not knowing anything about politics.Just because he is cbs liberal journalist who says he has seen the light about bias in the media does not make him an expert on politics. But I must say that Boehner should never had said that the house will not impeach obama. Leave it out there, you say something like, that you have just put your self in a box. Now you have made it worse for your party to act on behalf of the people of the USA. You forget that Harry “Quasimoto” Reid Democrat,Nevada, may not be the majority leader come jan.15,and boehner may not be speaker.Now they have tied the hands of the incoming leaders of the new congress.

    • WVF

      Boehner-brainer, just did what the faux president did. He took something off the table. Neither of them should ever take somet.hing off the table. When you do that, you have just screwed the country and everyone else. The new Speaker of the House will not be bound by Boehner, the tanning booth king of the House. After January 2015 Boehner and dingy Harry Reid can find a back bench somewhere.

  • ML NJ

    I’m for Impeachment (over and over while the Senate refuses to convict). It would make for great nightly theater on Cspan at least. And maybe some folks who get their news from the MSM might accidentally learn something.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Adherents of two opposing views are by definition hardliners. Yet Bernie the media (along with complicit allies like yourself) routinely paints only one side as “hardliner” Pro gay marriage advocates are called “moderates”, anti gay marriage advocates “hardliners”. Pro choice position “moderate”, pro life, “hardline”. Acceptance of illegal Immigration “moderate”, rejection of same, “hardline”. I could go on and on and on. Why are all leftist positions and their views (which often are diametrically opposed to traditional views) called “moderate” while traditional views are called “hardline” (code for extreme).

    • 10579

      Great,could not have put it any better.Good work.

    • Seattle Sam

      When you’re driving on the left side of a four lane highway. The other lanes all look to be on the extreme right.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        So what excuse do you give to (so called) traditionalists (conservatives) who use (and go along with) painting traditionalist’s with the same “hardline” brush?

    • MarioG

      Don’t forget that Bernie spent most of his life in the liberal New York bubble, until he was mugged by the truth. Like his buddy, Bill O’Reilly, he bends over backwards, to the point of herniating most of his discs, “to be fair” – especially fair to those who are screwing the rest of us. That seems fair to O’Reilly and Goldberg. They do little to balance the media scales against the liberal hordes on CNN and MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS and most of the major print media.

      For example, in the “All-Spin Zone”, Bill O’Reilly refuses to believe that Obama is anti-Israel, even though he has been demanding that Israel negotiate its own demise. Why? Because Obama always prefaces his attacks on Israel with “Israel has every right to defend itself against attack, BUT….”. O’Reilly says that preface cancels out any PROOF that Obama is anti-Israel.

      Similarly, Obama’s foreign policy is not weak and feckless because Obama uses drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. That takes all the smoke out of the gun.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Of course Obama believes Israel has the right of self defense. As long as they don’t hurt women, children, men, dogs, cats, goats, budgie birds, seagulls, rats, fleas, or even house flies. Other than that, bombs away.

  • nickshaw

    I’m not sure if talking the pronouncements of private citizens like Palin or West voicing the opinion of a substantial segment of the population can really be equated to “republicans call for impeachment”, Bernie.
    Though I do think that an “official” call for impeachment would be a mistake, it doesn’t negate the fact that there are grounds for impeachment proceedings.
    The difference is whether or not the majority would want those proceedings to go ahead.
    Lying to congress and the American public should be something we should not put up with but, we do.
    Unfortunately.
    That said, the impeachment talk by our side should stop.
    Dead stop!
    Make the Dims look bad when they can find no credible voice to quote in their ramped up campaign.
    There is nothing that can be done, which is a sad state of affairs and an even sadder commentary on the state of American voters.

    • a united state citizen

      I am and American citizen and I vote so my voice is heard. I also was hoping for President Obama to be a great president. But the longer he is in office the more i am not sure He really understands the constitution, the dec of independence and that the President is not to lie to the country. I do not trust biden i feel he is stealing our coutry blind and on and on. I am still very upset about the president going to bed with bengazi going on and than going to holiwood the next day. that is one of many things he blew. having a gay and lesbian ball in the whitehouse was very out of line and so was putting a cabosh on the national day of prayer. The reason our forfathers came to America was to have freedom of religion and we have been denied that in every way for many many years and this is the result. Sarah palin is on board and many others but the sin in the camp is what is going to take us down.

  • James

    Upholding the constitution, doing what your constituents elected you to do, Raining in an out of control executive branch that breaks the law at will, If that’s dopey than I’m a dope and you Goldberg and your RINO cohorts are PU$$Y! If y’all can’t convince the American people that we are in a severe constitutional crisis against this lame duck failure of a President and Democratic party with all their obstruction and scandals then you and the RINO’s should just shut the hell up and let the men in the room fight. We shouldn’t be running from impeachment but running to or on impeachment and making the case why it is crucial and will benefit the country and maybe save this Republic! If the Demonic-rats can only raise 2 million on impeachment the republicans could raise 100 times that saving the republic by impeachment! If you Goldberg and your RINO cohorts can’t stand on or for SOMETHING other than your wait and see hope you’ll win “the next election and the next election ect. ect.” then shut up and get the hell out of the way!!!!!!!!! The only time Republicans have ever won anything was on ideas like the contract with America and when the grass roots stood with principled candidates, the same thing actually. Your a washed up has been Goldberg, a dinosaur and should be put out to pasture!!!!!!!!

    • jon

      bernie has been sucking up to bill o’reilly too long

    • nickshaw

      Though I agree with you wholeheartedly, there are way too many sucking at the government teat and/or too stupid to understand what is being done to them.
      That’s just a political reality and it applies to our side as well.
      How else to explain the loss in 2012? The writing was writ large on the wall and Republicans/conservatives sat at home and let this administration run roughshod over them.

      • 10579

        Mr Goldberg is a liberal and always will be. Just because he says there is bias in media and is espoused by the other fence rider, O’Reilly, does not make him a conservative.

        • Stimpy

          Bernie is a pragmatist. Stop trying to insult him by calling him a liberal — he’s made too many impassioned essays about the lunacy of progressive liberalism. His is one of the few sane conservative voices. I don’t dislike Sarah Palin but she isn’t helping the conservative cause.

  • rider237

    See, I knew we’d come around to agreeing again :-)

    Palin and Mark Levin, who i would argue has a bigger following than Palin, have been supporting impeachment.

    they are right. he deserves to be impeached. they are commentators. they are expected to express an opinion. it’s an opinion that many of us, maybe most of us, agree with…BUT

    as a practical action, impeachment is not. not practical. it would be a distraction from the upcoming election which is our best chance of reining in the president. impeachment would require cooperation from the senate. that won’t happen.

    here, i disagree with Bernie.

    “The only people who want the President of the United States impeached are the crazies on the right – and Democrats. ”

    i think many of us want to see him impeached. it would put a halt to the inevitable re-writing of history, if nothing else. however, most of us know that it is not practical. what we want, and what we know, are not the same things.

  • Jenn

    THIS MORON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED WHEN HE FIRST COME INTO THE WHITE HOUSE!

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I’m guessing the case would have been a bit thin at that time. lol.

      • Jenn

        funny but true.. :)

    • Bob Hadley

      You’re simply saying what a lot of right wingers have thought. You’re one of the few to admit it tho’.

  • Mollywashington

    It makes me sad to see a woman, who had some promise to go so extreme. Michael Medved asked her to name one Democrat who would vote to impeach and she couldn’t name one. It gets her a lot of attention and plays right into the Democrat’s hands.

  • binky354

    Impeachment was being discussed, the case made for, articles written years before Palin spoke out.

  • roselover

    So once again Sarah Palin takes the blame for just saying what over a third
    of this Country is saying. You call those who want to see Obama stopped in his attempts to trample our Constitution. People forget just how correct Sarah Palin has been in the past and try to discount everything she says as stupid. What you forget is that by doing so you call those who agree with her stupid. Not a smart thing to do Bernie, your Liberal roots are showing.

    • 10579

      This is definitely a war not only on women which I don’t see at all, but rather a war on Sarah Palin.It seems like both parties want to silence her because she does not follow there narative for a good party soldier. Keep going Sarah.Who care what these corrupt politicians think.

  • Silas

    What does this whole discussion say about our country? A meaningless constitution and a Democratic Party and President that are so despicable and desperate to hold on to power that no stunt or scam is EVER “off the table”.

    • 10579

      Excuse me but our Constitution is not meaningless only to those who want to take away your rights and freedoms.

  • OKWishbone

    Bernie: I agree with this column wholeheartedly!! I believe that it is one of your most thoughtful and well reasoned columns. In all of your years as Writer/Speaker it is difficult to find a more thoughtful presentation. It would be foolish and stupid for the Republicans to attempt to impeach Barack Obama and would be ruinous to the GOPs chances of taking the Senate OR defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016.
    However, you make one HUGE error that I cannot imagine a writer with your experience and wisdom would make. You write: “But Boehner is on to something. Even as he and other sensible Republicans are saying…..” Your description of John Boehner as “sensible” is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard! As Speaker John Boehner has been made a fool of by this President too many times to count and has done more damage to the conservative cause in America than any Speaker ever! Name one Obama disaster that he has prevented, slowed, modified, etc. to the benefit of the Republican/conservatives perspective/agenda?
    The only thing conservatives should wish John Boehner was on was a train back to Ohio.

    • 10579

      Good sale pitch for a rino.

  • savage24

    If a Republican President did what Obama has been doing, the Democrats wouldn’t be worrying about the Republican base or Republican fund raising. Impeachment papers would have been drawn up long ago. Not impeaching Obama shows more of a fear being called racist than political expediency.

    • _lawrenc1

      Right or wrong, at the current time, that is a powerful weapon (the racism charge) that you can bet those who support the President would use like a jackhammer. Impeachment is more political than legal (again, right or wrong) which is why Speaker Boehner (ever the politician) is taking the calculated risk of both saying impeachment is off the table AND using the courts to sue the President for his misuse of the office. A court ruling in favor of Congress can go a long way in providing recourse, including impeachment proceedings, upon the next President who so brazenly defies the Constitution; it gives legal standing for possible impeachment.

      • savage24

        95% of the people running our court system today don’t know that our rights come from God, they believe they come from government. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a favorable ruling from this bunch, there might be some that would miss you.

        • _lawrenc1

          You forget that this current Supreme Court, including two nominees from the President himself, have struck down several of his action unanimously as recently as a few weeks ago. This issue in this case is not about “our” rights; it is about the over extension of executive action that denies Congress the ability and THEIR rights to perform their function as elected. In a perfect world, this President would be impeached…but then again, in a perfect world, no government would be necessary.

  • ksp48

    Sarah Palin is a TV personality, like the Kardashians. Once a promising politician she withdrew from any meaningful role on the public scene. She has less influence that that crazy left wing guy from Cleveland. See I can’t even remember his name.

    • Patrick H.

      Dennis Kucinich?

  • docneaves

    Yeah, shame on us hardliners for asking him to obey the law. Damn us. Impeach him anyway, and I don’t give a damn if there ARE sixty people in the Senate who won’t vote for it. Make your case to America, and dare the Senate to leave him in office.

    • JMax

      67

      • AFlaVet

        66 2/3′s…. a dem is missing part of his brain, certainly.

  • sniper2535

    The American people will not support the impeachment of the 1st black president. The idiots voted him in twice already. Unfortunately, walking on egg shells around this clown for a few more months may be wise. I hate it too.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    So Bernie can we give a retroactive apology to Richard Nixon, then?

    • JMax

      The Judiciary Committee vote to impeach Nixon was bi-partisan.

      • TheOriginalDonald

        whereas the Democrats KNOW O is violating the Constitution, yet they look the other way, hence the retroactive apology

        • JMax

          What part of the Constitution has the President violated? (I’ll give you the recess appointments, but that was not a high crime or misdemeanor. It was an interpretation that was overruled by SCOTUS.)

  • Brian Fr Langley

    “A dopey idea started by HARD LINERS in his own party”. And just what constitutes a hardliner these days? Do you mean someone who wants to see the U.S. constitution upheld? You know, the rule of law, (not the rule of Kings) the right to individual private property, the right of the unborn to life, marriage between one man and one woman (even Barack Obama’s position just 2 short years ago) The right of an elected Congress to legislate, are these the “Hardliners” you mean?

    • Patrick H.

      “marriage between one man and one woman” Um, are we talking the US Constitution or the Bible here?

      • Brian Fr Langley

        I thought we were talking about the kind of views that meant you were a “hardliner”.

      • toddyo1935

        It’s called Natural Law. Just because we have an obsession, it doesn’t mean it has to be satisfied at the expense of society. There are always offsets to our temptations that are built into our God-given gifts and talents that should take up our energies toward accomplishment. The USA has done more to make those opportunities available than any time in history. Then again, do we have anyone who knows how to carve a Pieta or paint the Cistine Chapel?

  • Wally C

    I think the phrase you used ” keep talking about impeachment and hope voters who aren’t too smart believe it might really happen” is the most important part.
    ” voters who aren’t too smart” is how we got here in the first place. Could you imagine people picking a doctor who had no surgical experience being chosen to perform surgery on you? All this Dr. has/had done is talk about a new way to do it? Insanity? absolutely.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      Leave Bernie alone. He DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night ;)

  • joepotato

    They need to include the felony ID fraud in any impeachment articles… That’s a stepping stone to Fraudobama’s unverified citizenship…. Obots hate that kind of talk… and then there’s the SSN from CT….